Kretzmann and McKnight (1993), of the Institute of Policy Research at North-western University, can be credited for the development of the asset-based approach to community development, called ABCD. They developed this approach over two years while working on endogenous community development in a number of low income urban neighbourhoods in the United States. The premise of the work of Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) is that communities can identify and mobilize existing (but sometimes unrecognised) assets, and drive the development process themselves by thereby responding to and creating local economic opportunity. A number of researchers have adopted and adapted the asset-based community development (ABCD) approach since 1993.
3.1.1 Definitions of asset-based community development
There are number of definitions of asset-based community development. For the purposes of this research the following definitions are relevant:
“Community development is a place-based approach: it concentrates on creating assets that benefit people in poor neighbourhoods, largely by building and tapping links to external resources” (Vidal & Keating, 2004:126).
“Community development is asset building that improves the quality of life among residents of low- to moderate-income communities, where communities are defined as neighbourhoods or multi-neighbourhood areas” (Ferguson & Dickens, 1999:5).
“Community development is defined as a planned effort to produce assets that increase the capacity of residents to improve their quality of life” (Green & Haines, 2007:vii).
“Community building in all of its efforts consists of actions to strengthen the capacity of communities to identify priorities and opportunities and to foster and sustain positive neighbourhood change” (Chaskin, 2001:291).
From the definitions, a number of components of the asset-based approach can be identified. Firstly, the approach has a place-biased focus, where communities are understood to be rooted in a physical geographical place.
Secondly, the definitions refer to the building up of, or the creation of assets, which are considered to be a resource or advantage within a community or place. Finally, a strong component of quality of life is included in the definitions. While this is a very vague concept, it should be defined by each community by establishing their own list of indicators that can be used to monitor whether actual changes are happening. Quality of life can refer to a variety of aspects related to the economic, social, psychological, physical, and political spheres of a community (Haines, 2009).
Asset-based development thus advocates the idea of seeking existing resources and advantages in a community and then allowing community members to facilitate their own sustainable change that would be within the
financial, economic, environmental, and social spheres of society. The approach can be used universally. However, the application of the approach is more applicable to non-wealthy communities, where guidance to identify and utilise their own assets has been neglected for generations.
3.1.2 The approach followed by asset-based community development
There are two different approaches to community development. The one is the more conventional needs-based approach, where the researcher determines the issues, problems and needs of a community. In the Global South it is very easy to point out problems within communities. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the needs-based approach was the preferred Non- Profit Organisations (NPO) approach to development in Africa (Booy, et al., 2000). The focus was on primary health care, water supply, and humanitarian food aid. The legacy of the needs approach in Africa is that many receiving aid have learned to define themselves and their communities by their needs and their deficiencies to the point that they can no longer identify anything of value around them (Greene, 2000). In communities where the basic needs approach had been applied, individuals believe that only a state of deprivation can enable them to attract external resources.
They often define themselves by their absolute dependence on outside help to meet their most basic of human needs. Until the 1970s, aid organisations rarely asked communities in the Global South what their priorities and concerns were, and at the same time these same organisations did not believe that the communities had something of value to offer in responding to the humanitarian crisis they faced (Booy, et al., 2000; Greene, 2000).
The net result was that NPOs applied the basic-needs approach on an annual basis and the results of these applications were enough to indicate to donors that there was an increasing need for greater levels of donor investment.
The major criticism of this approach is that if a community and researcher or outsider focuses on the problem, the cause of the problem is hardly ever addressed (Green & Haines, 2007). In some instances the problem can be too large for the community to solve itself, and should the community only focus on that particular problem they would probably give up due to the complex nature of the problem (Haines, 2009). This approach sometimes creates unreasonable expectations and reliance on the outside by the community members and the failure to meet these expectations results in disappointment and failure over time within the dependency paradigm. The application of the approach in very poverty stricken communities could find that as there are many problems and needs, the community members feel defeated before they even start trying to address the challenges.
Asset-based community development however, is the reverse of the basic needs approach. In contrast to focussing on the problems and needs, this approach focuses on the community strengths and assets (Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993; McNight, 1995; Mathie & Cunningham, 2002; Mathie &
Cunningham, 2003; McNulty, 2005; Mathie & Cunningham, 2008; Haines, 2009; Mathie & Cunningham, 2010; Schenck, et al., 2010). The assumption of the asset-based approach is that by focussing on communities assets, the community as a whole will start seeing the positive aspects of the community, for example, food gardens, mentoring programmes, and the inherent skills of the individuals. This approach does not ignore the problems within a community, but by focussing first on the strengths and small triumphs, and by implication the positive, it will create a snowball effect that will influence other sectors of the community.
3.1.3 Defining assets within the asset-based community development approach
Assets can be defined as the stock of wealth of a household or other unit (Haines, 2009). This can be extended to a definition that assets are a useful or valuable quality, person or thing, that can be an advantage or a resource (Sherraden, 1991). Kretzmann and McKnight (1993:25) define assets as
„gifts, skills and capacities of individuals, associations and institutions‟.
Derived from these definitions there are three types of assets: physical, human and social assets.
Physical assets include the natural resources and infrastructure of a community. These assets are normally geographically rooted into place, and normally have a high degree of existing or possible public or private investment, with the expectation of a return on investment. Human assets include the skills, talents, and knowledge of the community members.
Human assets (irrespective of age, gender, or ethnic composition) are mobile; people move in and out of the community, and thus human assets change over time due to migration or life cycles. Alternatively the skills of the people who remain in the community can also change due to skills training, and educational opportunities.
Social assets refer to the social relationships within a community, and often refer to levels of trust, values, norms and social networks. The active connections between and among people bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible (Cohen &
Prusak, 2001). While all assets are considered important in the asset-based approach, social assets are critical when it comes to mobilising the community, and is often the reasons for the success or failure of a project.
Social assets can further be divided into three categories. Firstly, financial assets refer to access to credit markets and other sources of funds. Poor
and minority communities often do not have access to credit, and this makes it difficult for such a community to obtain funding to start small businesses or any other activity that requires a financial input. The second social asset is that of political assets, in other words the capacity of the community and its organisations to exert political influence. The final social asset is cultural;
this is a very important asset that is often overlooked in the Global South and particularly in South Africa.
3.1.4 Application of asset-based community development
The asset-based approach to community development is very closely related to the sustainable livelihoods approach which is an integrated method of development that brings together a number of individual approaches to achieve sustainable change. The approach requires the assessment of community assets and decisions on how to adapt strategies and technologies to ensure sustainable change in communities. At the community level, the approach emphasises the importance of participation of communities to alleviate poverty. A livelihood is sustainable if it can cope with and recover from stress and shocks, maintain and enhance its capability and assets, and provide sustainable livelihoods for the next generation. It also builds on the local strengths of identifying and reinforcing the various strategies of local people to maintain their livelihoods in adverse circumstances (Schenck, et al., 2010).
A combination of the sustainable livelihoods approach with the asset-based community development approach is a very probable solution to poverty alleviation in South Africa in the 21st Century.
3.2 The Greater Rustenburg Community Foundation